KatolaZ,
[T.J. ] What I said was: " It should be important to note that a segfault can be caused by any number of things, that can be unrelated to systemd itself. I do grant you that systemd has its share of undesirables, but it could be exposing a flaw in the lower libraries as well. A lot of the time, the glibc library is also to blame. If there was ever any piece of software on Linux that needs a serious overhaul, beyond X11, it is the libc and GCC suite. " I said that systemd COULD be (not IS) be exposing a flaw in lower libraries (which is not unreasonable to say, given that it DOES happen). I said that a lot of the time the glibc library is ALSO to blame - as in "addition to" when certain problems arise. I agree with you that I definitely should have qualified that better. Defaults are not necessarily caused by glibc itself, but glibc DOES have certain quirks. It is not perfect and sometimes does not follow conformant behavior. One example would be realloc violates C99. I don't know if it still does, you will have to look for yourself. Software that is compiled against one libc is not the same as compiled against another. Glibc has a history of shortcomings, just as much as its successes. That does not make it a bad piece of software, but it is hardly flawless. That is has been forked or replaced multiple times in its history says something about it. > So please, do not blame glibc for faults that are not its own. On the other > > If you can prove that glibc/gcc is causing the segfaults of systemd then please > provide links to those *facts*, otherwise what you are saying is just > unsopported FUD. I agree that it is good that you desire accuracy, but you could ask for it without saying I am chanting "unsupported FUD". Laters T.J. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
